SFR, Inc.

[anset]

Hi,

Well, I finished reading the new rules (up to the tourny rules that is).

Here is some feedback I would like to give:

1. The routing rules must be rewritten a bit since the "you have to turn the terrain die one number down" is only stated at the end.

In the text, at some point it says that a second route is possible depending on "the new terrrain side", but at that point it was not yet explained that the terrain die must be turned down a number.

Also, it isn't totally made clear that a route can only occur when the action happens at the local terrain. I am still not entirely sure, but the way I understand routing, it cannot happen when I do a missile attack from lets say the frontier terrain to someones home terrain?

2. The rules are very technical.
Very detailed and precise, but very, very dry. They won't "charm" anyone to the game... For me at least, getting a feel for the game is as important as having clear rules. The small booklets that are included with the kickers and starters now are much more "storytelling".

I thought I read somewhere that these new advanced rules would be put in the new startters/kickers? That would be bad since these rules are way to big, both in pages and in rule complexity, and the dry-ness of them.

On the other hand, the old booklets are now pretty much outdated...

3. It should be noted somewhere in the rules that these new rules supercede the old ones and that anything not written in these rules does not count anymore. I only got the point about the rule saying that the home and campaign army may be multi-race now, when I read about it here on the forum. I read the old rules, where that rule was written, and I never made the connection that that rule was now gone...

It would not be a bad idea to have a section with "old, removed rules" at the end, next to the (very usefull) glossary... Alternatively, a FAQ could be added to the web site or a FAQ thread can be started here, and the web site could point to it.

4. Is this pdf "the" final version or are the rules stil being tweaked?
(I remember something about some graphics that would be added?)

Well, that's about it. Please note that this post is meant as positive feedback, not as criticisme. The people who worked on these rules have done an awesome job!

Wkr,

Anset

[chuckpint]

1) Ok, we'll look at that again. Your second point here was a problem I had as well. The key here is "opposing army". That term means an enemy army at the same terrain as you.

2) This are not the rules that will be in the starter. While they may be the basis for a DCM II, they are not that either. This are a reference work, which yes, tend to be dry and technical. But that is exactly what you need for tournament rules.

3) A FAQ could have a reference to what's changed between the rules. But it is not needed or desired to put that with the new rules. I know it's tough to forget the old rules, but we don't want to make the new rules even longer. Do I hear a volunteer to make this FAQ?

4) I'm starting to think that the icons and their meanings should be a different document. I don't have all the icons at this point. But other than some fixes I'm adding to the tournament section, I'd done with the wording. Except for thinking about the above...

[anset]

Hi again,

1) okelidokeli.

2) Totally agree. I just hope that the rules that are put in the starters contain some nice flavor text (if that is the correct term.)

3) Agree aswel. I didn't mean putting all the differences in the rules, but just mention that the rules in the document are "compleet". I have run some game tournaments before, and at those moments it is nice to be able to point a player to the "rules bible" where it specifically says "that these are the one and only rules"... A FAQ should indeed be a separate document, preferable online since it tends to change quite a bit.
(I'll try to make a start...)

4) Well, just let us know when it is final. We (my girlfriend and I) are thinking about doing a dutch translation of the rules. I had already started with the old advanced rules, was in fact almost finished, when the new rules were announced...


I have now finished reading the rest of the pdf.

One remark about the tournaments section:

- swiss: "a series of rounds until a limited number of people remain".
The "Swiss" style tounraments I know are not an elimination sturcture;
People continually get paired, depending on their past score results.
This way, the best players "bubble" up to the top of the ranking.
After a fixed number of rounds (enough to enable the best to reach the top, depends on the number of players), the top 4, or 8, or whatever was decided upon then start a direct elimination (beta) or alpha structure tourny...

If this is not the swiss the rules are talking about, I would suggest to create a non elimination style tournament anyway: the reason is that for semi-recreational tournaments, people want to be entertained for the duration and not be excluded after one round... Having one round contain 3 games is a solution too, but the problem here is that you can never have everybody play everybody. Not when more than 10 players play the tournament. it would take too much time.

The swiss I am talkng about would simply pair two players every time, until a good ranking was created, and then you do an alpha or beta style elimination for the top players.

We allready did that kind of tourny here with our player group and it worked out very well. After the swiss part witch lasted from 10:00am till about 15:00pm, we did a sinlge 4 player game to decide the final winner.

I am not sure if this makes sense... Let me knwo if I shouldbe more specific.

Wkr,

Anset

[chuckpint]

You managed to hit exactly the "tournament section" I was saying in my earlier message I was fixing. I'm in the middle of spelling out exactly how a "Swiss" tournament is run. Two things I'm still thinking about: The DD tie-breaker rules don't always work right. Sometimes the player that would win the game if there was enough time, loses because of the tie-breaker rules. So for a Swiss tournament, I'd thinking of giving out points like this: Clear win (capture two terrains, or wipe out the other player): 1.5 points. Win with the tie-breaker rules: 1 point. Draw (same number of terrains captured, same health in play, same health buried) 1/2 point. Lose: 0 points.

Any thoughts?

[ddicerc]

In another game I play in which I judge tournaments, the Swiss scoring works like this:

Outright win: 3 pts
Win at timeout: 2 pts
Draw: 1 1/2 pts
Lose at timeout: 1 pt
Outright loss: 0 pts

There's also a mechanism in that game for placing players who are tied on game points. Perhaps a "Health in play" option could be used to seed players. And what's wrong with having a DD game in which both players control the same numbers of terrains be counted as a draw for Swiss points? That way you force players to try to get at least one 8th face, instead of stalling for a wipeout blow.

Just a thought.
_________________
Steve "DDice" Braun
The Diceman's Gaming Pages: http://ddicerc.weebly.com
2014-2015 U.S. National Champion
(Just when you thought it couldn't get any worse...)

[cliffwiggs]

[chuckpint]